Guys just stop and move on.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Erm. You did reply to me
I will. When he realises.
After!! You jumped in to my post at Bill
Sorry wrong thread
Delete it then you muppet and stop trying for cheap laughs and derailing yet another thread
Real classy
Clearly neither of you will relent and it’ll just annoy most of the readers.
Ok man your right.
Fair enough. I’ll stop.
Just because you don't understand, don't mean it doesn't make sense. Your obviously easily confused. And it's odd that you responded to a post you claim not understand.
I'm pretty far away from being any sort of legal person, but wouldn't the issue be Sub-Judice laws rather than libel?
"Sub Judice is defined as “before a court of law or judge, under judicial consideration”. It is a Latin phrase which literally means “under a Judge”. As a matter is under judicial consideration it should therefore be prohibited from public discussion elsewhere. Matters are considered Sub Judice once legal proceedings become active. Criminal Proceedings are deemed active once a person has been arrested and/or charged with an offence and remain active up until the conclusion of the case. Public or media commentary which may be seen as prejudicial to the trial of an accused could have a negative consequence on its proceedings.
Commenting online on cases could breach the Sub Judice rule, and those commenting may find themselves in contempt of court and subject to their own penalties or prosecutions."
I'm guessing we're fine so far though...
"Sub Judice is defined as “before a court of law or judge, under judicial consideration”. It is a Latin phrase which literally means “under a Judge”. As a matter is under judicial consideration it should therefore be prohibited from public discussion elsewhere. Matters are considered Sub Judice once legal proceedings become active. Criminal Proceedings are deemed active once a person has been arrested and/or charged with an offence and remain active up until the conclusion of the case. Public or media commentary which may be seen as prejudicial to the trial of an accused could have a negative consequence on its proceedings.
Commenting online on cases could breach the Sub Judice rule, and those commenting may find themselves in contempt of court and subject to their own penalties or prosecutions."
I'm guessing we're fine so far though...
I am not a libel lawyer but I did study law in the U.K. I was going to give my opinion, caveating it with the fact my knowledge was gained 15 years ago. My knowledge was based on the common law at the time.
However since then a quick google reveals the existence of the Defamation Act 2013.
This can be found here: Defamation Act 2013
The act is quite clear.
Legal context…
I’m happy to be corrected but here is my view:
It’s unclear whether anything posted on this forum would constitute « serious harm » because the readership is low. A few dozen people on this forum is not serious reputational damage. That’s a risk although admin could probably assist by deleting any offending posts. The problem would likely disappear.
The safest course of action would be to mirror the type of language used in the media and refrain from unfounded speculation. However, a few sample comments…
This is fine because per the statute it is an « honest opinion » based on facts available to us.
This is not fine because the slurs and insults involve malice against person x and were reasonably intended to injure the other person.
Twitter rumours are not facts so I would not be confident that this could be defended.
Tldr: honestly held opinions based on FACTS are fine. Wild speculation is not if it could reasonably be held to damage someone’s reputation.
However since then a quick google reveals the existence of the Defamation Act 2013.
This can be found here: Defamation Act 2013
The act is quite clear.
Legal context…
The claimant would have to show that serious harm has or is likely to be caused.
Valid defences are:
1) The truth. It’s not libel if what you are saying can be shown to be true.
2) Honest opinion. These must be:
- A clear statement of opinion
- Reasonably held opinion by an honest person based on facts at the time
- The defendant must actually hold the opinion
3) Public interest defences most relevant to journalism.
4) operators of websites (ie
Admin
) are spared if:
- they did not make the statement
- They are able to identify the person who made the offending statement in such a way as to enable proceedings to be brought against that person.
5) Scientific, academic and privilege defences irrelevant here.
Valid defences are:
1) The truth. It’s not libel if what you are saying can be shown to be true.
2) Honest opinion. These must be:
- A clear statement of opinion
- Reasonably held opinion by an honest person based on facts at the time
- The defendant must actually hold the opinion
3) Public interest defences most relevant to journalism.
4) operators of websites (ie
Admin
) are spared if:- they did not make the statement
- They are able to identify the person who made the offending statement in such a way as to enable proceedings to be brought against that person.
5) Scientific, academic and privilege defences irrelevant here.
I’m happy to be corrected but here is my view:
It’s unclear whether anything posted on this forum would constitute « serious harm » because the readership is low. A few dozen people on this forum is not serious reputational damage. That’s a risk although admin could probably assist by deleting any offending posts. The problem would likely disappear.
The safest course of action would be to mirror the type of language used in the media and refrain from unfounded speculation. However, a few sample comments…
This is fine because per the statute it is an « honest opinion » based on facts available to us.
This is not fine because the slurs and insults involve malice against person x and were reasonably intended to injure the other person.
Twitter rumours are not facts so I would not be confident that this could be defended.
Tldr: honestly held opinions based on FACTS are fine. Wild speculation is not if it could reasonably be held to damage someone’s reputation.
We're about 10 years too late on this one. There's no getting the cat back into the bag.
